header-logo header-logo

Assuming guilt?

28 June 2024 / Tom McNeill
Issue: 8077 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Environment , Criminal
printer mail-detail
179423
Removing legal protections for company bosses won’t clean up our waterways, argues Tom McNeill

Labour plans to stop sewage polluting our rivers and seas include the eye-catching proposal: ‘Water bosses who oversee repeated law-breaking will face criminal charges.’ What does this mean? The law already contains provisions which allow for company officers to be prosecuted if environmental offences committed by the company are proved to have been committed with their ‘consent’, ‘connivance’, or ‘attributable to their neglect’. Those found guilty risk going to jail.

Guilt can be assumed

Comments from the shadow environment secretary, Steve Reed, suggest that the intention is changing the law to remove the requirement to prove such individual fault by senior managers when there is repeated serious offending by the company. When it comes to water company bosses, the idea appears to be that guilt can be assumed.

On 9 May, Mr Reed told the Commons: ‘The environmental regulator has today condemned the disgusting state of our waterways caused by the Conservatives letting water companies pump them full of raw sewage.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll